Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 24CHCV00106, Date: 2025-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV00106, Date: 2025-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00106 Hearing Date: March 28, 2025 Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 03-28-25

Case # 24CHCV00106, Andualem v. Tutor Time, et al.

Trial Date: None set.

MOTION TO SEAL PETITION FOR MINOR’S COMPROMISE

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Tutor Time Learning Centers, LLC, Katherine Stevens, and Terry Guevara

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order sealing petitioner Nathan Andualem’s Petition for Minor’s Compromise or, in the alternative, an order sealing portions of petitioner’s Petition for Minor’s Compromise.

RULING: Motion is denied without prejudice.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Nathan Andualem, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, (Plaintiff) filed this case on January 10, 2024. Plaintiff has alleged that he suffered injuries while in the care of Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Guevara, an employee of Defendant Tutor Time, pulled Plaintiff’s arm and injured him while at the premises. Plaintiff alleges that Tutor Time, Katherine Stevens, and Guevara were responsible for watching over Plaintiff at the time of the incident. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants attempted to cover up the incident and denied knowledge of how Plaintiff was injured, made up lies as to how Plaintiff was injured, withheld video evidence showing how Plaintiff injured, failed to immediately notify Plaintiff’s parents about how Plaintiff was injured, and failed to immediately give Plaintiff medical attention. Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on September 30, 2024.

The parties engaged in mediation on December 2, 2024 and reached a settlement on December 3, 2024. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed that the total amount of the settlement would remain confidential. The settlement was conditioned on the court’s approval of the Minor’s Compromise. To maintain confidentiality, the parties agreed that Defendants would seek a court order sealing the forthcoming Petition for Minor’s Compromise to be filed by Petitioner on behalf of Plaintiff regarding: (1) the extent of the total settlement amount agreed upon between the parties or (2) amount of payouts in the Minor’s Compromise.

Defendants filed the motion to seal on January 22, 2025.

ANALYSIS

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public, pursuant to a potent “open court” policy undergirded by the First Amendment and favoring the public nature of court proceedings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c); See NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1199-10.) Consequently, pleadings, motions, discovery documents, and other papers may not be filed under seal merely by stipulation of the parties; filing under seal requires a court order. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551(a); See H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 888.)

“A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).) The records cannot be sealed without the appropriate findings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

“[A] reasoned decision about sealing or unsealing records cannot be made without identifying and weighing the competing interests and concerns. Such a process is impossible without (1) identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to such treatment; (2) identifying the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure; and (3) identifying and accounting for countervailing considerations. The burden of presenting sufficient information to accomplish the first two steps is logically placed upon the party seeking the sealing of the documents, who is presumptively in the best position to know what disclosures will harm him and how. This means at a minimum that the party seeking to seal documents, or maintain them under seal, must come forward with a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.)

The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds that the facts establish: (1) an overriding interest exists that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) the overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

“The party requesting that a record be filed under seal must lodge it with the court under (d) when the motion or application is made, unless good cause exists for not lodging it[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(4).) The constitutional policy favoring disclosure must be balanced against other factors, e.g., privacy rights. (See People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1026-27.) The court acts within its discretion in making factual determinations on a motion to seal. (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1285.)

Defendants ask the court to seal the Petition for Minor’s Compromise or in the alternative to seal those portions of the Petition for Minor’s Compromise that include the total settlement amount agreed upon by the parties and the payout schedule in the Minor’s Compromise. Plaintiff has not, however, lodged conditionally under seal a copy of the petition.

Defendants assert that the court should seal the requested portions of the Petition for Minor’s Compromise for two reasons: (1) Plaintiff’s privacy interests and (2) confidentiality interests. Defendants claim that public disclosure of the settlement amount in the Minor’s Compromise and supporting documents would disclose Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s financial affairs. Public disclosure of the settlement amount and terms risks exposing Defendants to other watching-and-waiting claimants. Additionally, California has a strong policy of protecting the confidentiality of a minor’s private medical and financial information. Defendants also claim that without the court’s order to seal, the parties’ settlement efforts will be frustrated in that Plaintiff will not file the Petition for Minor’s Compromise, or Plaintiff will file an unsealed Petition that will reveal the terms of the settlement agreement which would materially breach the Confidential Settlement Agreement.

The court has reviewed the moving papers and finds that Defendants’ declaration of facts fails to comply with Rule 2.551(b)(1). Defendants asserts the essential facts by way of argument only instead of by declaration. If defendants choose to file another petition, it must be accompanied by a declaration that complies with Rule 2.551.

Furthermore, while the court is not necessarily opposed to sealing the amount of the settlement and payout schedule, it cannot do so without first seeing the proposed petition and the proposed redactions. Until then, the court cannot adequately determine whether sealing runs counter to any potential countervailing public policy concerns or determine whether the request to seal is narrowly tailored. In order to confirm whether the alleged basis for sealing overcomes any countervailing public interests, and, if so, whether the request to seal is narrowly tailored, the court requires that a renewed proposed petition to seal the application for minor’s compromise be lodged conditionally under seal and that any proposed redactions be identified.

Accordingly, the court denies Defendants’ motion to seal without prejudice.

CONCLUSION and ORDER

Defendants’ motion to seal is denied without prejudice.

If Defendants choose to file another motion to seal, Defendants must:

1. Make a proper showing of the “facts” according to Cal. Rule of Court 2.550;

2. Lodge a copy of the proposed minor’s compromise petition conditionally under seal; and

3. Specify the proposed redactions.

Defendants to give notice.